Yes. We know Anderson and his style by heart. Yes, we love him with all our heart!
But... I was a bit de-mystified by the fact that in this (potentially very meta-physical) story-composition there was MANY TIMES a voice over telling us what we just saw on our own. Chances are I truly missed the point of this, but after few minutes I felt truly annoyed by it... "yes I see myself a man with a problem that is xy" I thought many times. Was this the point?
Overall, apart from the seemingly unnecessary narrator, some of the scenes were "too light" for my taste, but I guess taste is just taste. Young people, dancing in sunlight; young people staring at each other. More profanity without the dark, underlying melancholy. Most of his other scenes in older movies feature also way more "mystical" (unexplained/riddled) situations, might they be more absurd, more surreal, more melancholic, more dramatic. Many scenes in this film felt quite "un-dramatic"... but again, maybe this was his point, finally giving us more light, more normal situations, more insight into happiness?
Apart from this point ( that I maybe didn't get): loved the absurdity, some of the actors, most of the sets (splendid as ALWAYS), the groteque, the paintinglike style, the "Andersonesque" techniques to tell a story.
Maybe one of you "unlocked" the solution to this film's mystery?
